Gangsters in Blue

I’ve had an interest in police culture and practices for a long time. I haven’t run into a huge amount of officers in my life, but I have seen some really good ones and some really bad ones. I’m just interested in what motivates them, I guess - it seems like most cops are bored most of the time.

And as I learn more, a trend towards belligerent behavior seems to emerge. It angers me for the obvious reasons, but the truly helpful and respectful cops stick out in my head and lead me to ask, “Why is this happening?” Many people have been collecting the evidence for this trend and asking the same question (Radley Balko’s blog is excellent in this area). I’ve heard a lot of answers: some blame the drug war, others blame the influx of military into law enforcement ranks, and still others blame it all on standard-issue government evilness. But I found another, more direct and provable answer in an article at PoliceLink.com entitled Street Survival Insights: Behavior Traits that get Cops Killed; Long Known, Still Ignored.

The long and short of it is that a study was done fifteen years ago and, while the conclusions were speculative and hard to prove, five traits of behavior likely to get cops killed were dreamed up arrived at. Of these five behavior traits, the very first three have directly to do with friendliness, openness, and generally acting like a human being among equals:

1. Friendly.

   This adjective was frequently used to describe the murdered officers, along with “well-liked,” “laid back,” and “easy going.” While a friendly demeanor “does much to promote a positive image for the officer and the department, overly friendly behavior at an inappropriate time” can backfire, the researchers warn…

2. Service-oriented.

   “Tends to perceive self as more public relations than law enforcement,” the researchers said of the prototypical slain officer. Of course service is part of your job. But on the street, your “customer” is not always right. To protect and serve the community, the researchers remind, “officers must realize that they need to protect themselves first” and not indulge a “misguided sense of service” that results in “placing prisoners’ comfort over their own personal safety.” In policing, your success—and your safety—often depend on your ability to get people to do what they don’t want to do.

3. Hesitant about using force.

   Victim officers tended “to use less force than other officers felt they would use in similar circumstances,” the researchers found. And they customarily “used force only as a last resort;” their peers said they themselves “would use force at an earlier point in similar circumstances.” Courts have clearly confirmed that it’s justifiable in situations you reasonably perceive as threatening to employ even pre-emptive force to stop a threat; you don’t have to wait until you are assaulted or injured. Yet some trainers are noticing that some officers today seem so hesitant about using force that it appears they are more afraid of being sued or thought overzealous than they are of being murdered!

If you’re wondering why the relationship between community and police has been eroding so consistently for so long, you need only read that article. Law enforcement professionals have been told for fifteen years that several of the core behaviors that comprise civil society are likely to get them killed. We should not be surprised that they are not friendly, respectful, genuine, or judicious. The attitudes that embolden officers to embrace militarization, treat the community like occupied territory, and abuse their privileges are the result of some vague conclusions of research conducted by the FBI - not exactly the paragons of community-level law enforcement.

But one of the sad answers to my question.

Honestly, when you look at this:

what is your first impression? Do these fellas look like the good guys or the bad guys? And, holy hell, do they look like public servants to you?

You may be concerned about judging by appearances, but sometimes there’s a reason it looks and quacks like a duck.

The feds are declaring war on Appalachia by designating 65 counties as constituting a “High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area“. It has long been known that marijuana cultivation and sale in that area is big business, bringing in over $4 billion annually from top dollar east coast markets to one of America’s most impoverished regions. With a war on terror going on, targeting poor, rural people is a curious allocation of scarce funds.

Now, for the feds to summon this level of coordination among the alphabet soup of local, state, and federal law enforcement organizations, they must perceive a huge problem. Usually, these kinds of major drug economies revolve around violence: brutal drug cartels that paralyze communities with fear, leave a trail of bodies, and force helpless local communities to appeal for federal intervention. So is that the case?

No, the problem is that the trafficking is too peaceful:

In the official “Appalachia HIDTA FY 98 - Threat Abstract,” the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) states that Appalachia warrants a federal crackdown because “in this tri-state area financial development is limited, poverty is rampant, and jobs are few. Marijuana has become a substantial component of the local economy, surpassing even tobacco as the largest cash crop. This has contributed to a high level of community acceptance of marijuana production, distribution, and consumption. Many honest local merchants do not recognize signs of illegal drug enterprises and in effect help launder drug proceeds. In such an environment eradication and interdiction efforts are difficult, as is obtaining intelligence, indictments, or an unbiased jury.” In other words, people are poor, locals are not that concerned about residents who are doing this, and people are not informing on their friends and neighbors to the extent that the government desires.

The problem is too much community! Yet again, government targets organic human association, seeking to replace it with an occupation culture of snitches, arbitrary searches and seizures, and the impunity of bureaucratic carpetbagging. They will tear whole communities to shreds - all in the name of keeping people from getting high.

However, it sounds like these kinds of invasive enforcement programs have resulted in a citizen backlash in the past:

In Northern California, residents have turned out to oppose aggressive marijuana eradication, because of the negative community impact it has. Forming “Citizens Observation Groups,” locals have documented government helicopters violating federal laws on flying altitude; environmental regulations; endangered species protection; and kept track of illegal search and seizure operations including the number of children that have been terrified by the men with face paint and automatic guns. More importantly, by documenting police actions, they have been able to raise awareness within their own communities and present a united front to their local government. This united front eventually lead to county supervisors voting to reject funding for the program.

If there was ever a countereconomic battlefield worth fighting on, this is it. We left libertarians should keep an eye on this issue.

Radley Balko has just posted what I think is the most moving essay yet on the Cory Maye case and the drug war in general (if you think it’s worth sharing, digg it). Getting beyond the legalities, moral appeals, and outrage, Balko simply recounts how the drug war cost a good cop his life and a great father his family and freedom. When you feel like the cards are stacked against any chance of decency in this world, read this post and dig deep down for the strength, not simply to vote for the right politicians and see the right policies enacted, but to make your neighborhood a better, safer, more humane place.

This is from Voltairine de Cleyre’s 1894 address, In Defense of Emma Goldman and the Right of Expropriation. She is responding to Goldman’s maxim: “Ask for work; if they do not give you work, ask for bread; if they do not give you bread, then take bread.” What I love about her favorable yet cautious response to that phrase is the way she penetrates the illusory fervor of the mob mentality, extracting instead the need for reflection and understanding.

You are told you have the power because you have the numbers. Never make so silly a blunder as to suppose that power resides in numbers. One good, level-headed policeman with a club, is worth ten excited, unarmed men; one detachment of well-drilled militia has a power equal to that of the greatest mob that could be raised in New York City. Do you know I admire compact, concentrated power. Let me give you an illustration. Out in a little town in Illinois there is a certain capitalist, and if ever a human creature sweat and ground the grist of gold from the muscle of man, it is he. Well, once upon a time, his workmen, (not his slaves, his workmen,) were on strike; and fifteen hundred muscular Polacks armed with stones, brickbats, red hot pokers, anti other such crude weapons as a mob generally collects, went up to his house for the purpose of smashing the windows, and so forth; possibly to do as those people in Italy did the other day with the sheriff who attempted to collect the milk tax. He alone, one man, met them on the steps of his porch, and for two mortal hoers, by threats, promised, cajoleries, held those fifteen hundred Poles at bay. And finally they went away, without smashing a pane of glass or harming a hair of his head. Now that was power! And you can’t help but admire it, no matter if it was your enemy who displayed it; and you must admit that so long as numbers can be overcome by such relative quantity, power does not reside in numbers. Therefore, if I were giving advice, I would not say, “take bread”, but take counsel with yourselves flow to get the power to take bread.

There is no doubt but that power is latently in you; there is little doubt it can be developed; there is no doubt the authorities know this, and fear it, and are ready to exert as much force as is necessary to repress any signs of its development. And this is the explanation of EMMA GOLMANN’S imprisonment. The authorities do not fear you as you are, they only fear what you may become. The dangerous thing was “the voice crying in the wilderness” foretelling the power which was to come after it. You should have seen how they feared it in Phila. They got out a whole platoon of police and detectives, and executed a military maneuver to catch the little woman who had been running around under their noses for three days. And when she walked up to them, why then, they surrounded and captured her, and guarded the city hall where they kept her over night, and put a detective in the next cell to make notes. Why so much fear? Did they shrink from the stab of the dressmakers needle? Or did they dread some stronger weapon?

Ah! — the accusation before the New York Pontius Pilate was: “she stirreth up the people”. And Pilate sentenced her to the full limit of the law, because, he said, “you are more than ordinarily intelligent”. Why is intelligence dealt thus hardly with? Because it is the beginning of power. Strive, then, for power.

In this era of ever expanding access to information, it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep the people down by force. This problem has been solved largely by inventing myriad means of distraction. Not only does this quell substantially the corrective dynamics that moderate outward inequality and subjugation, it also prevents the understanding of the self that is so crucial to unlocking the seat of true power.

I don’t really care whether you believe in God or not. What I care about is the human spirit, for that is the only gateway to our best nature. And that, my friends, is the only divinity we’ll ever be able to count on in any measure, regardless of the exact character of its source (which we insult one another by arguing over, as if we have the words to express the subtlety of these immensely personal experiences).

The more I study the task of liberation, the more clearly and urgently I perceive it as a struggle of self against the authoritarian within far more than against the authoritarian without. The latter’s position is far less precarious if they have set the terms by which you judge your own potential - if they have trained you, in other words, to oppress yourself. And similarly, I believe that the overthrow of the former will ultimately be more rewarding to the individual and, by extension, society.

As an end note, let me remind the reader that I wrote extensively about the crossover of spirituality and individualism in my essay, History as the Evolution of Identity.

Recently I have discovered a renewed interest in left libertarian and anarchist concepts of community solidarity. My interests lie in finding ways to build community relationships and institutions that devolve important decisions to the interpersonal, neighborly level - rather than counting on government bureaucrats and politicians to fix all our problems. I believe that this reliance on an outside force to manage us - a top-down, progressive-era holdover - has damaged what was once a bottom-up, dynamic consensus. This breakdown in neighborliness is partially responsible for many of our present social ills, and reflects the dark side of the centralized, managerial State that so many Americans seem to want.

Inviting cops into our neighborhoods should be a last resort, because law enforcement professionals view everybody - not just the elements you find undesirable - as a potential criminal. They write traffic tickets; they harass citizens; they conduct reckless raids against innocent citizens; the list just goes on. Residents should be very careful when inviting outsiders - such as police officers - to make decisions on how the neighborhood’s business should be conducted. Ideally, cops should be called only as an alternative to a neighborhood resident employing force himself in self-defense, and only in reaction to a particular threat.

Maybe there was once a time when police officers lived in the neighborhoods they patrolled, knew everybody by name and whose kid was whose, and exercised a form of reasonable discretion (even if that discretion was poisoned by racism, classism, etc.). Maybe they policed on the basis of what was best for the community rather than maximizing their arrest statistics to secure federal funding. Those times, however, are no more: police are intervening in neighborhoods more and more, with less and less of a sense of statutory limitation, and a growing sense of entitlement to dictate to people the most mundane details of their lives. This dependence on such authoritarian elements is surely brought about by the increasing atomization and isolation of residents, who cannot look to the community to realize their values. When neighbors are strangers, there isn’t even the opportunity to establish an authentic sense of shared interests or common concerns, let alone the true security situation.

If you’re looking for the other side of the story, check out Nick Napolitano’s report at Los Angeles IndyMedia:

Rampart division officers harass and illegally search and detain a peaceful protestor for 15 minutes because the protestor was documenting the march and had decided to take a photograph of the wrong officers. The protestor is released when a crowd starts to gather and take pictures of the incident. (Please note that event #1 occurred when all was calm and peaceful and the march was slowly winding its way into MacArthur Park)

(Approximately 30 minutes after the first event) Officers start to push a protestor at the corner of Wilshire & Parkview. This results in the Los Angeles chapter of Copwatch quickly moving into action to document the incident. A crowd quickly gathers and the street starts to fill up with people of all ages and backgrounds. A protestor was shown the true force of a police baton in blunt force trauma to the head. Organizers start to plead with people to leave the street for fear that the officers will declare this an illegal assembly because of people being in the street. People remain in the street simply because they are trying to protect those that they love and care for. LAPD was now fully mobilizing at this point getting riot gear ready and forming a defensive block. Bear in mind; this all started with LAPD attacking peaceful protestors.

LAPD Chief Bratton called some of the responses “inappropriate”, even though officers in full riot armor were “provoked” by “anarchists” (read: people wearing bandanas) throwing plastic water bottles. I guess assault and battery, reckless endangerment, and other unlawful actions get different names when the police engage in them for the slightest provocations.

There’s some scary stuff on PostSecret, but this takes the cake:

More about Rex 84 here.

One other random tidbit: isn’t “continuity of government” an usurpation of the human rights asserted by the Founders - by definition?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If the government is rendered unable to lawfully govern - regardless of whether that is the result of invasion or civil insurrection - then that government can be considered dissolved and no longer a legitimate authority (assuming for the moment that it ever is). I mean, if the government has lost any ability or interest in defending our persons, why even recognize it? If an invasion occurs successfully, then it’s over - and resistance is far more likely to occur in a decentralized, guerrilla fashion than as an activity coordinated by the same incompetent and spineless bureaucrats we deal with today. But moreover, is there any real difference between our “public servants” operating as a sort of Vichy regime for hostile invaders and being a hostile sovereign, independent government? Under either scenario, ignoring the State is the only sane option, regardless of the stakes.

I wonder if the U.S. government has any super-secret military plans to encourage and coordinate the smooth transition to “new Government” being instituted by the People. Of course, I’m sure they have all sorts of plans for new government that they’d like to institute.

It occurs to me while reviewing the endless electronic reflection on the VT incident that the gun control crowd and their sympathizers don’t offer any rational, realistic arguments against allowing students to carry on campus. I have yet to see one person actually volunteer a concrete reason why it should be disallowed. What we get instead are appeals to emotion based on perceived feelings of vulnerability.

From an otherwise decent article by Lila Rajiva:

However much we may support the second amendment, do we really want students packing heat in their book bags, as filled with alcohol, drugs and partying as most campuses are today?

From a VT administrator:

The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We’ve seen that fear here, and we don’t want to see it again.

From a journalist:

Moreover, guns on campuses could turn smaller confrontations into major incidents. As drinking is a large part of university social life, a common drunken brawl could escalate into a deadly duel if firearms were present.

Many students don’t get to hand-pick their roommates in residence; imagine the discomfort of sharing a small room with a stranger who keeps a gun under his or her pillow.

If there are guns in residence and around campus, violence could spread beyond the university confines and into bars and other nearby places.

What do all of these opinions have in common? Simple: they are examples of disarming people on the grounds of vague fears. We just don’t like the idea of students carrying firearms. Students are unpredictable and potentially irresponsible, and that scares us, so let’s take that idea off the table. Let’s ignore the fact that guns are just as deadly to the bad guys as the good guys, and that shooting a bad guy is one very straightforward and undeniable approach to solving the problem.